Are we overestimaing Democrats chances with the PV as we do with Republicans in the EC?

[EastwoodS]

Could there also be a realignment anytime soon where the GOP actually has the advantage in the PV while Democrats have the advantage in the EC? Long term where do you see the PV trending?

[President Johnson]

Doubtful. Where would the additional Republican votes come from? If any region, Republicans have only gained in the Midwest in recent years, which is losing population in the long run. And it remains to be seen whether that's still the case post-Trump. Otherwise, Democrats are very strong in California and New York, while population centers like Texas and Georgia are trending away from Republicans.

While the Electoral College favors Republicans, they have a lower ceiling. It's almost impossible for a Republican to get past 325 or 330 electoral votes in a head-to-head matchup, while Democrats can reach 350 and beyond.

[EastwoodS]

Doubtful. Where would the additional Republican votes come from? If any region, Republicans have only gained in the Midwest in recent years, which is losing population in the long run. And it remains to be seen whether that's still the case post-Trump. Otherwise, Democrats are very strong in California and New York, while population centers like Texas and Georgia are trending away from Republicans.

While the Electoral College favors Republicans, they have a lower ceiling. It's almost impossible for a Republican to get past 325 or 330 electoral votes in a head-to-head matchup, while Democrats can reach 350 and beyond.

I've heard Democrats are maxed out there [CA], is this true? Also, isn't NY a little more elastic than CA? This also assumes these trends stay exactly the way they are now and never change. I personally think it's wise to never assume a state will ever stay with one party forever and no state is absolute from a new critical mass of ideology.

[RINO Tom]

I can't say that I know, but I think it's important to distinguish between the "short term" (say, 2024 or 2028 if Biden/Harris win in 2024) and the "long term" (elections in the 2030s and especially 2040s).  The coalitions in the 2030s and 2040s will almost CERTAINLY get a big shakeup, and it will upend the lazy assumptions we are all making because of what is happening now.  However, the 2020 election will be a good basic guide for the dynamics of 2024, IMO, with the two nominees being good for a 1-2% change either way.

[Beet]

If the Republicans win the PV, they are likely getting a 400 or 500 landslide in the EV. At that point, we are going to see the end of the modern era of close elections that has been the case since 1992, and return to 1980s-style landslides.

[EastwoodS]

I can't say that I know, but I think it's important to distinguish between the "short term" (say, 2024 or 2028 if Biden/Harris win in 2024) and the "long term" (elections in the 2030s and especially 2040s).  The coalitions in the 2030s and 2040s will almost CERTAINLY get a big shakeup, and it will upend the lazy assumptions we are all making because of what is happening now.  However, the 2020 election will be a good basic guide for the dynamics of 2024, IMO, with the two nominees being good for a 1-2% change either way.

Short term, I meant to say, is 2024 up to but not including 2028. I feel like we both agree that either 2028 or 2032 will be a big shakeup.

[EastwoodS]

If the Republicans win the PV, they are likely getting a 400 or 500 landslide in the EV. At that point, we are going to see the end of the modern era of close elections that has been the case since 1992, and return to 1980s-style landslides.

This assumes high turnout. Low turnout could make it a tossup too